Warnings: Negligence or Reasonable Restraint?

“Cheney Says Bush Handled Hijack Warning Correctly,” May 20: If a doctor were presented with nonspecific information about the treatment of one of his patients, after his assistants had decided it was important enough to pass along to him, and then rode around his ranch shooting rabbits and did not request more information or alert his patient, and then the patient died, that doctor would be sued for malpractice and personal negligence. If that doctor then decided to alert all his patients to new nonspecific dangers, should that absolve him of his first error? Are we to hold our president to any lower standards?

As Harry Truman said, “The buck stops here.” President Bush’s defensiveness and Vice President Dick Cheney’s threat toward the Democrats sound like they would like to pass the buck.

Carol A. Johnson

La Jolla

*

Predicting an imminent terrorist act closely resembles the challenge of reliably predicting major earthquakes. A major earthquake on the San Andreas Fault could easily produce 100 times the number of casualties produced by the World Trade Center attack. But given the enormous economic consequences, what level of certainty is needed to justify the issuance of a public warning to evacuate L.A.?

We already know the disastrous economic impact of Sept. 11 on the airline industry resulting from the grounding of all aircraft in the immediate aftermath and the sharp drop-off in the number of air passengers during the months that followed. Clearly, the level of reliability and specificity of intelligence estimates relating to new hijacking attempts would also have to be very high to justify grounding the commercial air fleet or issuing a public warning to avoid air travel.

Terrorists already realize they can wreak more economic havoc on this country by planting false intelligence leads than they can by actually carrying out more terrorist acts. That makes the problem of assessing intelligence information even more difficult.

Dan Emory

Newport Beach

*

It is absurd to think that Bush would not have done everything in his power to avoid the Sept. 11 tragedy had the government been able to “connect the dots” among the fragmented clues. Unfortunately, such hypothetical action is not the test of leadership.

During the 2000 campaign we were assured that intellect was not a critical quality for a president. A good staff could always compensate for a president who lacked intellectual curiosity. However, it is at the very top of an organization where all the diverse pieces of information come together. Although we cannot recreate history, it seems plausible that a keener, more inquisitive mind might have asked the questions that would have helped avoid Sept. 11.

David Rubenson

Los Angeles

*

What did the president know, and when did he forget it? Apparently his monthlong nap last August was more on his mind than these warnings.

Prediction: War against Iraq in time for November elections.

David G. Porter

Anaheim